Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

LudwigVan123 · Jun 30, 2002, 07:26 AM

The subject line says it all.

The screen captures supposedly come from "late 6C7x-series builds of Jaguar...". Included are some grabs of Ink at work.

An aside: I would have sworn I've seen the DVD picture as well as one other one someplace else a few weeks ago. Also note that there is no Ink icon in the System Preferences pane; perhaps it's nestled someplace else (in this build).

Peabo · Jun 30, 2002, 08:03 AM

I wonder why they blurred out the last number in the build! What do they think they're hiding?

ablaze · Jun 30, 2002, 09:44 AM

The "computer" icon seems to be a the new iMac now! (Look at the Utilities screenshot for example) Or is the icon finally representing the machine you're currently running?

Jerommeke · Jun 30, 2002, 09:56 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ablaze:
The "computer" icon seems to be a the new iMac now! (Look at the Utilities screenshot for example) Or is the icon finally representing the machine you're currently running?<hr /></blockquote>I hope the latter, but the first thing is the case, when you look at the about screen, and I think they shot it at one machine, knowing they are working on a PowerMac.

CheesePuff · Jun 30, 2002, 11:27 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jerommeke:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ablaze:
The "computer" icon seems to be a the new iMac now! (Look at the Utilities screenshot for example) Or is the icon finally representing the machine you're currently running?<hr /></blockquote>I hope the latter, but the first thing is the case, when you look at the about screen, and I think they shot it at one machine, knowing they are working on a PowerMac.<hr /></blockquote>Sorry to burst your bubble, but the About The Mac screen shows he is on a Dual 500 MHz G4, while the icon is one of the flat panel iMac.

KidRed · Jun 30, 2002, 11:31 AM

Looks like they are going back to the curve edged search field in the finder window. The bad thing is the squared white area around the curved edges. Why can't they make a curved edged mask so the aqua stripes don't get cut off? I notice a lot of aqua widgets have this squared mask behind it, mostly on the circular widgets.

The info under the files and folders is ok, but what if you don't use the finder with the huge icons? I use list view so I guess this new feature is useless to me.

OwlBoy · Jun 30, 2002, 12:27 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KidRed:


The info under the files and folders is ok, but what if you don't use the finder with the huge icons? I use list view so I guess this new feature is useless to me.<hr /></blockquote>And some don't ever use spring loaded folders while soeone like me wants them back badly. They are so handy.

-Owl

Millennium · Jun 30, 2002, 01:36 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jerommeke:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ablaze:
The "computer" icon seems to be a the new iMac now! (Look at the Utilities screenshot for example) Or is the icon finally representing the machine you're currently running?<hr /></blockquote>I hope the latter, but the first thing is the case, when you look at the about screen, and I think they shot it at one machine, knowing they are working on a PowerMac.<hr /></blockquote>That is, I'm afraid, no longer possible.

Old Mac motherboards used to be able to identify themselves to the operating system. You could see it in the "About This Macintosh..." screen up to about System 7.1, I think it was.

Apple stopped actually using that for anything, though, around the time of the clones, and when 7.5 came out the ABM screen no longer said the specific model. They kept the feature in the motherboards, however, until they started with the Unified Motherboard Architecture (the original iMac was the first one to use this).

You can still query for certain features and try to guess. But it wouldn't be guaranteed to be accurate. A single-processor G4 Desktop would "look" no different from an iMac/G4 to the computer.

Adam Betts · Jun 30, 2002, 01:49 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Millennium:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jerommeke:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ablaze:
The "computer" icon seems to be a the new iMac now! (Look at the Utilities screenshot for example) Or is the icon finally representing the machine you're currently running?<hr /></blockquote>I hope the latter, but the first thing is the case, when you look at the about screen, and I think they shot it at one machine, knowing they are working on a PowerMac.<hr /></blockquote>That is, I'm afraid, no longer possible.

Old Mac motherboards used to be able to identify themselves to the operating system. You could see it in the "About This Macintosh..." screen up to about System 7.1, I think it was.

Apple stopped actually using that for anything, though, around the time of the clones, and when 7.5 came out the ABM screen no longer said the specific model. They kept the feature in the motherboards, however, until they started with the Unified Motherboard Architecture (the original iMac was the first one to use this).

You can still query for certain features and try to guess. But it wouldn't be guaranteed to be accurate. A single-processor G4 Desktop would "look" no different from an iMac/G4 to the computer.<hr /></blockquote>Yes you're right *BUT* all computer have their own serial number. OS will be able to identify the computer by serial number. Just like prisoner with serial number on their back and jailer will be able to identify which prison they escaped from

Liudger · Jun 30, 2002, 02:30 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by z0ne81:
I wonder why they blurred out the last number in the build! What do they think they're hiding?

<hr /></blockquote>it's build 6c73. I did spoil it already so i don't think it's a problem any more to throw it around <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

the other topic on this site, were we are talking about ThinkSecrets build, is <a href="http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=46;t=007177" target="_blank">here</a>

Spheric Harlot · Jun 30, 2002, 03:06 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KidRed:
Looks like they are going back to the curve edged search field in the finder window. The bad thing is the squared white area around the curved edges. Why can't they make a curved edged mask so the aqua stripes don't get cut off? I notice a lot of aqua widgets have this squared mask behind it, mostly on the circular widgets.<hr /></blockquote>They're not done yet, silly.

Take a look at the URL field in OmniWeb. Of course it's possible.

-spheric*

davidmd · Jun 30, 2002, 03:12 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KidRed:
Looks like they are going back to the curve edged search field in the finder window. The bad thing is the squared white area around the curved edges. Why can't they make a curved edged mask so the aqua stripes don't get cut off? I notice a lot of aqua widgets have this squared mask behind it, mostly on the circular widgets.<hr /></blockquote>They're not done yet, silly.

Take a look at the URL field in OmniWeb. Of course it's possible.

-spheric*<hr /></blockquote>It helps that OmniWeb is a Cocoa application and not Carbon, like the Finder. The Finder toolbar is a "hack" in that it's not and doesn't act like a true "Cocoa customizeable toolbar." It's all fine to me, though, as long as they make that part as invisible as possible...

m3 · Jun 30, 2002, 04:49 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by davidmd:
It helps that OmniWeb is a Cocoa application and not Carbon, like the Finder. The Finder toolbar is a "hack" in that it's not and doesn't act like a true "Cocoa customizeable toolbar." It's all fine to me, though, as long as they make that part as invisible as possible...<hr /></blockquote>I have to call bs. on this one...

The only part of the Finder toolbar that isn't *exactly* identical to a Cocoa toolbar is the pseudo-sheet used for customization. Otherwise, it's written using standard classes which provide a toolbar identical to that of a cocoa application.

For another example of a carbon app using what you believe is a 'cocoa toolbar' see Audion 2.5 and after-

<img src="http://www.panic.com/audion/rgfx/3-1.jpg" alt=" - " />

uochris · Jun 30, 2002, 04:52 PM

"Performance in these new builds has been excellent -- astounding, to say the least -- and when you take into consideration the fact that these builds are far from completely optimized, with lots of debug code, then the speed of the final shipping version of Jaguar should be admirable."

They didn't really say that did they? That's a joke right?

[ 06-30-2002, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: uochris ]

JLL · Jun 30, 2002, 05:08 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Liudger:
[QUOTE]it's build 6c73. I did spoil it already so i don't think it's a problem any more to throw it around <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> <hr /></blockquote>The Think Secret build is newer than 6C73.

MacNytt.com have 6C73, and they say that the screenshots from Think Secret show things that they didn't see in 6C73.

frawgz · Jun 30, 2002, 05:16 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Millennium:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jerommeke:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ablaze:
The "computer" icon seems to be a the new iMac now! (Look at the Utilities screenshot for example) Or is the icon finally representing the machine you're currently running?<hr /></blockquote>I hope the latter, but the first thing is the case, when you look at the about screen, and I think they shot it at one machine, knowing they are working on a PowerMac.<hr /></blockquote>That is, I'm afraid, no longer possible.

Old Mac motherboards used to be able to identify themselves to the operating system. You could see it in the "About This Macintosh..." screen up to about System 7.1, I think it was.

Apple stopped actually using that for anything, though, around the time of the clones, and when 7.5 came out the ABM screen no longer said the specific model. They kept the feature in the motherboards, however, until they started with the Unified Motherboard Architecture (the original iMac was the first one to use this).

You can still query for certain features and try to guess. But it wouldn't be guaranteed to be accurate. A single-processor G4 Desktop would "look" no different from an iMac/G4 to the computer.<hr /></blockquote>There was a script available for download in one of these forum threads that changed your Computer icon to the appropriate model. Mine is (appropriately) a Cube right now. How did that work?

AKcrab · Jun 30, 2002, 05:32 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Millennium:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jerommeke:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ablaze:
The "computer" icon seems to be a the new iMac now! (Look at the Utilities screenshot for example) Or is the icon finally representing the machine you're currently running?<hr /></blockquote>I hope the latter, but the first thing is the case, when you look at the about screen, and I think they shot it at one machine, knowing they are working on a PowerMac.<hr /></blockquote>That is, I'm afraid, no longer possible.

Old Mac motherboards used to be able to identify themselves to the operating system. You could see it in the "About This Macintosh..." screen up to about System 7.1, I think it was.

Apple stopped actually using that for anything, though, around the time of the clones, and when 7.5 came out the ABM screen no longer said the specific model. They kept the feature in the motherboards, however, until they started with the Unified Motherboard Architecture (the original iMac was the first one to use this).

You can still query for certain features and try to guess. But it wouldn't be guaranteed to be accurate. A single-processor G4 Desktop would "look" no different from an iMac/G4 to the computer.<hr /></blockquote>If that's true, how did milhous manage to do it with an applescript? If I remember right, it ran apple system profiler and got it's data from there.
(See <a href="http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=46;t=005773;p=2" target="_blank">this old thread.</a>) Perhaps I'm not understanding your post.

BuonRotto · Jun 30, 2002, 05:57 PM

I think that Apple uses hardware serial numbers that can be codified as certain types of computers, i.e., all iMacs sold have serial numbers that start with, as an example, "L7M." This is in the system ROM I think, or in any case, the System Profiler has this info. That's how Mithras' little Applescript worked I think. He was able to equate serial numbers with computer types, thus downloading the correct "Computer" icon replacement.

Big Mac · Jun 30, 2002, 06:28 PM

I found the coverage on Mac Help very positive:

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Finally, Mac Help has been completely revamped in newer builds, and includes lots of new documentation for Jaguar, including a "what's new" section. <hr /></blockquote>This is good news indeed. Advanced users don't have to call on help services, but it's definitely important to have them for new users - especially with the anemic state of Apple's print manuals. OS X's Mac Help has been an abomination; it is simply worthless. It's good to know Apple realizes that despite the easy to use nature of OS X, providing help is still a good thing.

[ 06-30-2002, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: Big Mac ]

moki · Jun 30, 2002, 06:44 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Millennium:
Apple stopped actually using that for anything, though, around the time of the clones, and when 7.5 came out the ABM screen no longer said the specific model. They kept the feature in the motherboards, however, until they started with the Unified Motherboard Architecture (the original iMac was the first one to use this).

You can still query for certain features and try to guess. But it wouldn't be guaranteed to be accurate. A single-processor G4 Desktop would "look" no different from an iMac/G4 to the computer.<hr /></blockquote>Nah, it is still very possible to get the machine name -- check out Gestalt.h:

enum {
kMachineNameStrID = -16395
};

You can use other Gestalt features to look at multiple CPUs, etc. So yes, there is no longer a new Gestalt selector for each machine, but it is still very possible to determine what machine it is.

gorgonzola · Jun 30, 2002, 06:49 PM

Another reply to Millennium -- Apple is using something that identifies the machine anyway (presumably the Gestalt header that moki referred to); look in the About Box picture. It says the machine type (at least accurately enough to do a dynamic icon).

JLL · Jun 30, 2002, 06:54 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by gorgonzola:
look in the About Box picture. It says the machine type (at least accurately enough to do a dynamic icon).<hr /></blockquote>No it doesn't. It just says what kind of processor you have - and how many.

moki · Jun 30, 2002, 06:58 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by davidmd:
It helps that OmniWeb is a Cocoa application and not Carbon, like the Finder. The Finder toolbar is a "hack" in that it's not and doesn't act like a true "Cocoa customizeable toolbar." It's all fine to me, though, as long as they make that part as invisible as possible...<hr /></blockquote>True customizable toolbars are coming to Carbon in Jagwyre...

MrBS · Jun 30, 2002, 07:01 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by moki:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by davidmd:
It helps that OmniWeb is a Cocoa application and not Carbon, like the Finder. The Finder toolbar is a "hack" in that it's not and doesn't act like a true "Cocoa customizeable toolbar." It's all fine to me, though, as long as they make that part as invisible as possible...<hr /></blockquote>True customizable toolbars are coming to Carbon in Jagwyre...<hr /></blockquote>Moki, do you know if Apple plans to keep extending Carbon's abilities? Are they trying to get everyone to move over to Cocoa? or are they going to continue building on each?
~BS

moki · Jun 30, 2002, 07:12 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MrBS:
Moki, do you know if Apple plans to keep extending Carbon's abilities? Are they trying to get everyone to move over to Cocoa? or are they going to continue building on each?
~BS<hr /></blockquote>Carbon is actually likely more important to Apple's long-term strategy than Cocoa. Yes, Cocoa is a nice framework -- but not many people are interested in learning a new framework and a new linguistical syntax (though Objective-C is quite easy).

So no, I don't think Apple is going to try to force people to move to Cocoa. It wouldn't work anyway. If you think major vendors like Microsoft, Macromedia, Adobe, etc. are going to rewrite their applications in Cocoa, you're just smokin' skunkweed.

I like Cocoa. I wish I had more time to play with it more (my first exposure to it was way back in 1992 when I did some NeXTSTEP development). However it isn't compelling enough for me to abandon my current code base. I likely will do a side project for fun to re-learn it, but that's about it.

Yeah, I know, this will probably turn into a Cocoa/Carbon flamewar... which is silly. The only people who should be concerned about Cocoa vs. Carbon are programmers -- they get to pick which API they want to write to.

If Carbon isn't up to snuff with Cocoa in some areas, or Cocoa isn't up to snuff with Carbon in some areas (both are true), that just means Apple has more work to do to bring about feature parity. Finally, I leave you with an anonymous quote I read recently from a highly clueful developer:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />It's not like Cocoa, where someone at Apple thinks we can throw away our PowerPlant-centric code and switch over to an application framework built on a bizarre-syntax language under an anemic development environment where we don't have source to the framework - merely because Cocoa is better than most 1991 frameworks. <rolls eyes><hr /></blockquote>

MrBS · Jun 30, 2002, 07:31 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by moki:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MrBS:
Moki, do you know if Apple plans to keep extending Carbon's abilities? Are they trying to get everyone to move over to Cocoa? or are they going to continue building on each?
~BS<hr /></blockquote>Carbon is actually likely more important to Apple's long-term strategy than Cocoa. Yes, Cocoa is a nice framework -- but not many people are interested in learning a new framework and a new linguistical syntax (though Objective-C is quite easy).

So no, I don't think Apple is going to try to force people to move to Cocoa. It wouldn't work anyway. If you think major vendors like Microsoft, Macromedia, Adobe, etc. are going to rewrite their applications in Cocoa, you're just smokin' skunkweed.

I like Cocoa. I wish I had more time to play with it more (my first exposure to it was way back in 1992 when I did some NeXTSTEP development). However it isn't compelling enough for me to abandon my current code base. I likely will do a side project for fun to re-learn it, but that's about it.

Yeah, I know, this will probably turn into a Cocoa/Carbon flamewar... which is silly. The only people who should be concerned about Cocoa vs. Carbon are programmers -- they get to pick which API they want to write to.

If Carbon isn't up to snuff with Cocoa in some areas, or Cocoa isn't up to snuff with Carbon in some areas (both are true), that just means Apple has more work to do to bring about feature parity. Finally, I leave you with an anonymous quote I read recently from a highly clueful developer:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />It's not like Cocoa, where someone at Apple thinks we can throw away our PowerPlant-centric code and switch over to an application framework built on a bizarre-syntax language under an anemic development environment where we don't have source to the framework - merely because Cocoa is better than most 1991 frameworks. <rolls eyes><hr /></blockquote><hr /></blockquote>cool. thanks for the insight. if I wouldn't be hijacking the thread I'd ask you which features weren't up to snuff in one or the other. Maybe a thread in developer with a couple of the major points? or just a response here with a link to an explantation?
thanks agian for your time.
~BS

juanvaldes · Jun 30, 2002, 07:42 PM

moki I'm curious, are you going to be doing any new projects in cocoa, or just like many other developers not spend the time to learn the new framework and just stick with what you know?

Also, when I was playing with the PS2 Linux Kit I was very pleased to find Maelstrom on there. Did you guys do this or just let someone else do it?

[ 06-30-2002, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: juanvaldes ]

Mr Scruff · Jun 30, 2002, 08:10 PM

Maelstrom has been in every version of Linux I've run for a little while now. As far as I know some guy obtained the source code with the view of doing a Linux port, and since they're not many games for Linux and it's GPL'd it gets included.

<a href="http://www.devolution.com/~slouken/Maelstrom/" target="_blank">GPL Maelstrom</a>

moki · Jun 30, 2002, 08:16 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by juanvaldes:
moki I'm curious, are you going to be doing any new projects in cocoa, or just like many other developers not spend the time to learn the new framework and just stick with what you know?<hr /></blockquote>I do know a bit of Cocoa already, I'm just not that well versed in it that I can start writing large-scale projects. Just because you know a language/framework doesn't mean you can start writing programs using it, anymore than knowing English means you can start writing novels.

Just "knowing a language" doesn't mean a whole lot. Having the skills to build and finish a large-scale project is a more important thing when it comes to producing useful software. The way you have to architect a large-scale application in Cocoa is very different than in Carbon, or even other OO APIs.

Cocoa *does* get you up to speed building simple applications very quickly -- but a good bit of time needs to be spent not only learning the particulars of the various objects and their methods, but also the gestalt methodology that the framework uses, and how it interconnects.

In a nutshell, just "rewriting it in Cocoa" isn't going to happen unless the person doing it is very motivated to learn Cocoa, and has the time available to do that. Most production developers don't have the luxury of having enough time on their hands to do that.

I *do* plan to do some more stuff in Cocoa, but I'll be doing it purely because as a developer, Cocoa is *fun* to use. It's also a lot of work to get up to speed on it, but at least it is enjoyable work.

There's more to it than that, too -- large-scale developers have huge code bases in PowerPlant that they simply are NOT going to throw it out and rewrite in Cocoa.

Carbon isn't a transitional API. It is on par with Cocoa, and Apple will continue to develop both. Take a look at the major applications out there -- how many of them are cocoa?

PhotoShop, Illustrator, Internet Explorer, Netscape/Mozilla, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Entourage, etc. are all Carbon apps. Sure, there are some cocoa apps that do similar things, but in terms of real-world use, I doubt they even register on the Ritcher scale. How many artists use TIFFany instead of Photoshop?

It should be pretty clear that both APIs are important to Apple -- vitally important -- both for different reasons. Let developers choose the API they want to use. Let Apple bring both APIs up to feature parity. Enjoy the apps.

Millennium · Jun 30, 2002, 08:38 PM

Why do people think Objective-C's syntax is so bizarre anyway? OK, so it doesn't look exactly like C; why's that so important?

I'm not trying to get into a Carbon vs. Cocoa debate here. I'm just noting a common complaint about Objective-C; people are so hung up on it not looking exactly like C (even though the only difference is in message-passing, which C doesn't even have so that's not really a difference). Since when does a 30-year-old language suddenly define the fashionable syntax for all other languages?

Or, more to the point, who the heck cares what a language looks like as long as it's readable? So it's not a blind clone of C; what's the big deal?

moki · Jun 30, 2002, 09:01 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Millennium:
Why do people think Objective-C's syntax is so bizarre anyway? OK, so it doesn't look exactly like C; why's that so important?<hr /></blockquote>Objective-C is just C with some smalltalk-ish OOP extensions (OK, it is a bit more than that under the hood, but syntax-wise...)

I don't find Objective-C's syntax to be bizarre at all. The time it takes to learn Objective C is meaningless compared to the time you'll spend learning the Cocoa frameworks.

Many companies won't go for Objective-C just because it is so oddball and under-used.

davidmd · Jun 30, 2002, 10:01 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by moki:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by davidmd:
It helps that OmniWeb is a Cocoa application and not Carbon, like the Finder. The Finder toolbar is a "hack" in that it's not and doesn't act like a true "Cocoa customizeable toolbar." It's all fine to me, though, as long as they make that part as invisible as possible...<hr /></blockquote>True customizable toolbars are coming to Carbon in Jagwyre...<hr /></blockquote>This is excellent! The more they make Carbon and Cocoa act EXACTLY the same to the end user, the better. Yes, I am talking about things as small as COMMAND-clicking the toolbar widget rotating through view options which doesn't happen in the Finder. There should be as much consistency as possible. (Grrrr... those services, too! I always use the very handy WordLookup service to select and translate chinese characters in OmniWeb right from the browser, but alas this doesn't work in the Finder.) I should have to try REALLY hard to be able to tell the difference, not have it be glaring at me.

On a related note, does anyone know if Services are coming to all Carbon apps in Jaguar? (I know they can be programmed in, but many programmers seem too lazy to enable them...)

Adam Betts · Jun 30, 2002, 10:10 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by moki:
PhotoShop, Illustrator, Internet Explorer, Netscape/Mozilla, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Entourage, etc. are all Carbon apps. Sure, there are some cocoa apps that do similar things, but in terms of real-world use, I doubt they even register on the Ritcher scale. How many artists use TIFFany instead of Photoshop?<hr /></blockquote>I'm not sure why you included Netscape/Mozilla as an example. They used platform-independence code so cocoa is out of their choice anyway.

juanvaldes · Jun 30, 2002, 10:44 PM

Moki I think you misunderstood a little...I said new projects because I am well aware that it is WAY to much trouble to "rewrite it in Cocoa". And yes, that is very true that it's much more then knowing the language (that can be learned in a day) but more of knowing the cocoa libraries.

So, it sounds like you personally will play around with cocoa some but all foreseeable future ambrosia software will be carbon because since cocoa and carbon are equal there is no need to spend time and money learning cocoa when you already know carbon.

So it would appear that cocoa will be the domain of college students and small developers and carbon will be for the big boys who can't afford to throw out old code and rewrite it from scratch.

also is Mr Scruff correct about Malstrom? If so would you be releasing the code some some ambitious person could port it to OS X? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

BuonRotto · Jun 30, 2002, 11:15 PM

Outside of the programmer's personal tastes, there are arguments to be made for both Carbon (procedural code) and Cocoa (plug-in code) depending on the project's objectives and needs. Diversity is a good thing I hear.

Back on topic:

I just noticed that in the new screen shot of the iDisk tab in the Internet preference pane, there's no tab for default newsreader anymore.

<a href="http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/jaguarnewupdatesimages/internetidisk.gif" target="_blank">http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/jaguarnewupdatesimages/internetidisk.gif</a>

It's been quite a while since I've gone out of my way for anything that needed a news reader. Does this affect a lot of other people though?

[ 06-30-2002, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]

hushmail · Jul 1, 2002, 01:36 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Adam Betts:
I'm not sure why you included Netscape/Mozilla as an example. They used platform-independence code so cocoa is out of their choice anyway.<hr /></blockquote>What platform independent code are you referring to? The core or the interface? They use Carbon for the interface, but they might as well have used Cocoa. It's not like people who're still using MacOS < X are going to use a browser like Mozilla anyway.

Gul Banana · Jul 1, 2002, 02:24 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by juanvaldes:
also is Mr Scruff correct about Malstrom? If so would you be releasing the code some some ambitious person could port it to OS X? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> <hr /></blockquote>There's already an OS X version of Maelstrom - someone took the Linux version and ported it back.
<a href="http://www.devolution.com/~slouken/Maelstrom/" target="_blank">http://www.devolution.com/~slouken/Maelstrom/</a> is the site

fourstarcltv · Jul 1, 2002, 04:30 AM

did anyone else notice the 'white' keyboard and mouse icons in the <a href="http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/jaguarnewupdatesimages/systempreferences.gif" target="_blank">system preferences</a> pane?

could this be a pointer to the next powermac revision?

hmmm...

Developer · Jul 1, 2002, 04:54 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by fourstarcltv:
did anyone else notice the 'white' keyboard and mouse icons in the <a href="http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/jaguarnewupdatesimages/systempreferences.gif" target="_blank">system preferences</a> pane?

could this be a pointer to the next powermac revision?<hr /></blockquote>I would say it's a pointer to the current iMac revision.

moonmonkey · Jul 1, 2002, 05:04 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by fourstarcltv:
did anyone else notice the 'white' keyboard and mouse icons in the <a href="http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/jaguarnewupdatesimages/systempreferences.gif" target="_blank">system preferences</a> pane?

could this be a pointer to the next powermac revision?

hmmm...<hr /></blockquote>A good point, I think the new towers could be white, shiny not mat like the new iMac.